Discussion:
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
(too old to reply)
R. Scott
2008-02-09 16:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Your tinfoil hat is Too Tight its cutting the blood from your brain and
making you post Nonsensical BS thats not even true.
Marengo
2008-02-09 19:25:59 UTC
Permalink
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
<snip>


http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
---
Peter
Scam Buster
2008-02-09 19:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Who's this conspiracy nutcase?
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.
This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.
It should be noted that this model differs massively from the "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".
DEMOLITION MODEL
A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows
1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.
2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.
3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.
4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.
Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.
Using the elementary motion equation
distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2
We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor
[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g
where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.
The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times
[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g
Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.
[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m
If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is
[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)
which follows from the elementary equation of motion
(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)
Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.
[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)
Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)
Solving for the initial velocity u_k
[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)
Which is a recurrence equation with base value
[1.8] u_0=0
The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives
[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0
Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives
[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0
REFERENCES
"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM
This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.
g :: Double
g = 9.8
This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)
cascadeTime :: Double -> Double -> Double -> Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g |
k<-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 +
2*g*h )
Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.
wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93
Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.
wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77
Terry Austin
2008-02-09 20:24:27 UTC
Permalink
There is no way that a bilting where thousands worked every day could
be prepped for demolition with no one noticing. I am serious, find
anyone that ever did demolition and ask them how tough it is to
prepare a building. It can take months of partly cutting columns,
stripping furniture, cutting concrete, etc.
The 9/11 "internal demolition" conspiracy theorists have their heads
in the sand when it comes to reality.
That's a polite way of saying "they're mentally ill and retarded."
--
Terry Austin
"Dude, we're all your bitch, but only Ken's wearing the juice."
- tussock

"Just throw a rock, and what screams will probably be a moron."
- Elvis (no, not that Elvis)
Jeremy Q.
2008-02-09 20:50:51 UTC
Permalink
The 9/11 "internal demolition" conspiracy theorists have their heads
in the sand when it comes to reality.
It's seven years after the fact and you're *still* replying to every 9/11
conspiracy thread that gets xposted to risparew. There's clearly something
about the issue that has captured your imagination, just as it has theirs.
David E. Powell
2008-02-09 21:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Q.
The 9/11 "internal demolition" conspiracy theorists have their heads
in the sand when it comes to reality.
It's seven years after the fact and you're *still* replying to every 9/11
conspiracy thread that gets xposted to risparew. There's clearly something
about the issue that has captured your imagination, just as it has theirs.
Because someone has to point out fallacy lest future people believe
the nonsese. It is the same reason there are organizations dedicated
to record keeping about the Holocaust, the Nanking massacre, etc.
r***@gmail.com
2008-02-09 21:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Powell
Post by Jeremy Q.
The 9/11 "internal demolition" conspiracy theorists have their heads
in the sand when it comes to reality.
It's seven years after the fact and you're *still* replying to every 9/11
conspiracy thread that gets xposted to risparew. There's clearly something
about the issue that has captured your imagination, just as it has theirs.
Because someone has to point out fallacy lest future people believe
the nonsese. It is the same reason there are organizations dedicated
to record keeping about the Holocaust, the Nanking massacre, etc.
the evidence of the holocaust wasnt immediately recycled.
though the german govt sure tried their best to do it.

now, where are the orgs devoted to record keeping about the truth of
the reichstag fire and documented pretext operations like
"northwoods"?

you are trying to whitewash the truth for future generations. the
american revolution was for nothing
Jeremy Q.
2008-02-09 21:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Powell
news:e414af78-4bf3-
The 9/11 "internal demolition" conspiracy theorists have their
heads in the sand when it comes to reality.
It's seven years after the fact and you're *still* replying to every
9/11 conspiracy thread that gets xposted to risparew. There's clearly
something
about the issue that has captured your imagination, just as it has theirs.
Because someone has to point out fallacy lest future people believe
the nonsese. It is the same reason there are organizations dedicated
to record keeping about the Holocaust, the Nanking massacre, etc.
Someone has to joust those giants, or they'll ravage the land!

Future people aren't likely to see any of your replies. The most likely
way they'll encounter the text of the original article is as an
abbreviated, acontextual search result. And really, the idea that
crossposted Usenet trolls will be given consideration over official
reports and evidence by people in the future is just silly.

Stop your nonsense.
Cameron L. Spitzer
2008-02-12 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
NIST is wrong. The 9/11 Truth movement is just as wrong.
Both sides make the same mistakes. Impressive equations with
no reliable data to plug into them.

In 1975 I attended a lecture where an instructor in
fire safety engineering at the University of Maryland
showed how a WTC tower had to collapse if a fire ever
got out of control. He drew pictures on the blackboard.
They showed exactly what we saw on 9/11, right down to
the "squibs." The only difference was the airplanes.
The instructor figured a shorted out coffeepot or copier
would start the fire.

Those buildings were flimsy firetraps. The port authority
district was drawn to exempt them from the manhattan
fire code, so they could be 110 stories high instead of 85.
It was the biggest controversy in large building design
in decades. No other steel frame skyscrapers have burned
down like that because no others were ever built like that.

Here's a 9/11 theory for you. The owners of the buildings
knew the buildings would fall down. You don't buy something
that big without researching it. They overinsured them
and let it happen. Biggest insurance fire in history.
No amazing secret preparation for demolition needed.
No conspiracy too big to keep quiet needed, either.

This stuff is off topic in all these newsgroups, and has been
beaten to death in the ones where it belongs. Followups
to poster.


Cameron

Loading...